LD iS8S 
■ 5 



./95 

/1M 



a. 



i ^ 



4583 







TELEPHONE 


5 




iDISON SQUARE 6870 


L9a 




I: 


>y 1 






1 


HENRY B. THOMPSON, '77 


■ 


CHAIRMAN 


■ 


JAMES BARNES, '91 


■ 


VICE-CHAIRMAN 


■ 


PARKER D. HANDY, '79 




TREASURER 


■ 


GEO. W. PERKINS, JR., '17 






SECRETARY 



Princeton Endowment Fund 



124 EAST 28TH STREET 
NEW YORK CITY 



CENTRAL COMMITTEE 

CHARLES SCRIBNER, '75 
HENRY FAIRFIELD OSBORN, '77 
HENRY B. FINE, 'SO, 
FRANCIS G. LANDON, '81 
JOHN GRIER HIBBEN, '82 
WILLIAM CHURCH OSBORN, '83 
HENRY C. IRONS, '89 
DICKSON Q, BROWN. '95 
CURTIS M. WILLOCK, '98 
CHARLES W, HALSEY, 98 
IVY L. LEE, '98 

walter e. hope, '01 
percy r. pyne, ii, '03 
samuel a. lewisohn. '04 
Stephen baker 

A. barton HEPBURN 
GEO. W. PERKINS 
WILLIAM H. PORTER 
BENJAMIN STRONG 
THEODORE N. VAIL 
F. A. VANDERLIP 

REGIONAL CHAIRMEN 

WILSON ARBUTHNOT, '87 

PITTSBURGH, PA. 

J. LIONBERGER DAVIS, 'OO 

ST. LOUIS, MO. 

JAMES D. DENEGRE, '89 

ST. PAUL, MINN. 

ROBERT GARRETT, '97 

BALTIMORE, MD. 

M. W. JACOBUS, '77 

HARTFORD, CONN. 

CYRUS H. Mccormick, '79 

CHICAGO, ILL. 

JOHN McWlLLIAMS, Jr., '01 

PASADENA, CAL. 

JAMES H. PERSHING, '88 

DENVER, COL. 

JOHN O. H. PITNEY, '81 

NEWARK, N. J. 

WILLIAM COOPER PROCTER, '83 

CINCINNATI, OHIO 

MOSES TAYLOR PYNE, '77 

NEW YORK, N. Y. 

HUGH RICHARDSON, '94 

ATLANTA, GA. 

A. VAN RENSSELAER, '71 

PHILADELPHIA, PA. 



November 15, 1919. 
Dear Sir: — 

I have been Chairman of the Princeton Endowment Fund 

for about six months. During that period of time I have been 

able to make a rough survey of the personnel of our Alumni 

and I have met many Princeton graduates from all parts of the 

United States. My experience has been that when the needs 

of this Campaign are intelligently explained to the Alumni 

and they realize the vital necessity and the tremendous bearing 

this work has on Princeton's future, the response comes both 

in service and in money. 

The question of the necessity of this Campaign, I will not 
discuss in this letter. I do want to put before you the possibil- 
ity of securing this large sum of money through a proper dis- 
tribution among the Alumni themselves. 

I have been repeatedly asked about the assignment of 
quotas to the different districts. This is seemingly an impos- 
sible task, as we have little data on which we can intelligently 
figure. The number of Alumni in each district is the only 
exact information that we possess. If we should receive a 
$1200. subscription from every Alumnus, we would about se- 
cure our fund. Taking this as a basis of calculation, with cer- 
tain additions, based on our knowledge of the personnel of a 
locality, we have worked out the following tentative quotas : 



it^ 



b o 



APPORTIONMENT 



1^ 



0/ 



District 1 $250,000 

2 4,600,000 

3 1,500,000 

4 1,500,000 

5 2,100,000 

6 400,000 

7 350,000 

8 800,000 

9 300,000 

10 1,100,000 

11 500,000 

12 250,000 

13 150,000 

14 150,000 

15 350,000 

16 25,000 



$14,325,000 



Of course this somewhat hypothetical apportionment puts a heavier load on New 
York, Pittsburgh, and Chicago, in proportion to the nimiber of Alumni in these dis- 
tricts. In view of our knowledge of individuals in those cities, however, it would not 
seem too heavy a burden. 

Now as to what we will require in the way of individual subscriptions to complete our 
fund : the figures below are more or less guess work, but based on what we have already 
received, it does not seem an unreasonable distribution. 



2 subscriptions at $500,000. equal $1,000,000 



8 




i 


250,000. ' 


2,000,000 


5 




i 


150,000. ' 


750,000 


10 




I 


100,000. ' 


1,000,000 


20 




i 


50,000. ' 


1,000,000 


75 




i 


25,000. ' 


1,875,000 


100 




I 


10,000. ' 


1,000,000 


200 




I 


5,000. ' 


1,000,000 


2000 




i 


1,000. ' 


2,000,000 


4000 




< 


500. ' 


2,000,000 


3000 




cc 


200. ' 


600,000 


1000 




E< 


100. ' 


100,000 




$14,325,000 






Sin 






E 


'ubliaher 






t 


'OV 


r »/is 





Regional Organization — Princeton Endowment Fund 



Districts Territory 

1. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa- 
chusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut. 

2. New York City and State. 



3. New Jersey. 



4. Philadelphia, all of Pennsylvania east of a 
line drawn north and south through Harris- 
burg and including Harrisburg and Dela- 
ware. 



5. Pittsburgh and all of Pennsylvania west of 
a line drawn north and south through 
Plarrisburg. 

6. Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia. 



7. North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 
Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi. 



8. Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana. 



9. Michigan. 



10. Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin. 



II. Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Ne- 
braska. 



12. Texas, Louisiana. 

13. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. 



14. Colorado, Wj-oming, IMontana, Utah, New 
Mexico. 



15. California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, 
Nevada, Arizona. 



16. Alaska, Insular Possessions, Foreign Coun- 
tries. 



Chairmen 

Dr. M. W. Jacobus, Chairman, 
39 Woodland Street, 
Hartford, Conn. 

M. Taylor Pyne, Chairman, 
20 Exchange Place, New York City. 
Walter E. Hope, Vice Chairman, 
49 Wall St., New York City. 

John O. H. Pitney, Chairman, 
701 Prudential Bldg., Newark, N. J. 
Edward Duffield, Vice Chairman, 
116 Scotland Rd., South Orange, N. J. 

A. Van Rensselaer, Chairman, 
Ft. Washington, Pa. 
Malcolm Lloyd, Jr., Vice Chairman, 
c/o Princeton Club, 1223 Locust St., 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

Wilson S. Arbuthnot, Chairman, 
801 Penn Ave., Pittsburgh, Pa. 
Benj. F. Jones, Vice Chairman, 
808 Ridge Ave., N. S., Pittsburgh, Pa. 

Robert Garrett, Chairman, 
German and South Sts., 
Baltimore, Md. 

Hugh Richardson, Chairman, 
eeyz North Forsyth St., 
Atlanta, Ga. 

Wm. Cooper Procter, Chairman, 
Cincinnati, Ohio. 

E. L. Ford, Chairman, 
Ford Bldg., Detroit, Mich. 

Cyrus H. McCormick, Chairman, 
606 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, 111. 
John Stuart, Vice Chairman, 
1600 Railway Exchange Bldg., Chicago. 

J. Lionberger Davis, Chairman, 
Federal Reserve Bank Bldg., 
St. Louis, Mo. 

No Chairman as yet. 

James D. Denegre, Chairman, 

905 Commerce Bldg., St. Paul, Minn. 

James H. Pershing, Chairman, 
Equitable Bldg., Denver, Colo. 
Leslie R. Kendrick, Vice Chairman, 
205 Logan St., Denver, Colo. 

John McWilliams, Jr., Chairman, 
305 St. Louis Block, 
Pasadena, California. 






i. 



When we consider that the payment of a subscription is extended over a five year 
period, it does not seem impossible that 2000 of our Alumni should be able to con- 
tribute $1,000., payable in five annual installments; or 4000 of our Alumni to be capable 
of paying $500. in five annual installments, and so on. 

ALUMNI FUND 

Our Alumni have been paying annually for the support of the University, through 
the Alumni Fund, over a period of years, approximately $60,000. per year, Or a $5.50 
per capita contribution. 

EXPENSES OF CLASS REUNIONS, ETC. 

A conservative estimate will show that the Alumni are spending from $350,000. to 
$400,000. a year on Class Reunions, and attendance at the annual football and baseball 
matches. The items of expense of this amount are football, baseball, and railroad tick- 
ets, automobiles, lunches, reunion tents and brass bands. If this amount could be capi- 
talized, it would mean $8,000,000. added to our Endowment Fund. The contrast be- 
tween subscriptions to Alumni Fund and Annual Expenses of Class Reunions, etc., is 
too extreme, yet it would be unwise to discourage, in any way, these Class Reunion ex- 
penditures, as they have a certain real value in stimulating and holding Alumni inter- ■; 
est in the University. ? f 

;•■: I / 

COST OF EDUCATION 

I have been asked by a number of our Alumni what proportion our tuition fee at 
Princeton bears to our total educational cost. Based on the figures of five years, 1911 
to 1916, we find that the tuition fee carries 30 2/10 per cent of the cost, the University 
carrying 69 8/10 per cent. 



i_XDr\nr\ i ^' 



028 340 030 P 



This question has also been put to me : Is there not an obligation resting on the 
Alumnus to reimburse the University for what they have given him during his four 
years of undergraduate life ? Of necessity, the answer to this question must be a matter 
of individual decision. 

PERSONAL APPEAL TO EVERY ALUMNUS 

The theory on which this campaign is based is a personal appeal to every Alumnus 
and every friend of Princeton made possible by a sufficient subdivision of committees. 
You will lighten the work of the chairman of your district if you will resolve yourself 
into a committee of one. Your first work will be to "educate your committee." This can 
be done, in part, by giving one hoiu*'s time to reading our book "Princeton." If you 
have not a copy of this book, on application to this office one will be sent you. 

After you have informed yourself as to our needs, make the personal application to 
yourself as to what your responsibility is in this work, always keeping in mind this is 
not a "loose change campaign." It wiU involve some financial sacrifice on the part of 
our Alumni, if we propose to carry forward this work to a successful conclusion. 

If you are satisfied that you have a personal responsibility in this matter, you have 
a wide choice of subscriptions, — a choice suited to the financial status of all classes of our 
Alumni. 

In conclusion, I believe Princeton has reached the parting of the ways. The choice 
of whether Princeton will be, for the future, a Country College or a National Univer- 
sity rests with the Alumni. 

Yours sincerely, 

Henry B. Thompson, 

I 

Chairman. 



